The Superiority (Or Not) Of The Scientists

[porca misèria]

In a way the whole point of academia is to lay claim to a field of knowledge and then extract rent from it. To that end its vital to maintain the position that without the proper (bought and paid for) training and qualifications your views are useless.

Academia is rather the opposite to that. Indeed, the mercenary tend to be weeded out (e.g. go to work in the city) by the thought of being on a low income and having no security into your 30s. The commoditisation of academia ("degrees for all", and the idea that you can equate a teaching treadmill to an education) is anathema to the academic.

Although publish-or-perish sadly tends to be a little too prevalent in career terms, though I guess the alternative would inevitably bring more nepotism and the like, open-mindedness must be a defining characteristic of any academic worthy the name. And that means accepting good work no matter what the source. So for example Ramanujan just had to find the right man to write to to get "discovered" and sponsored to embark on his academic career without formal qualification.

[Austin Allegro]

In my experience most scientists don't have a sense of superiority.

The people who tend to be superior as far as I can tell are those,mostly laymen, who think science 'proves' everything. It enables them to opt out of any difficult moral questions.

Philosophy and theology don't get a look in, because to them that's all just waffle about whether chairs exist or not or who's got the best imaginary friend.

The daftness of slogans like 'it's true because the Bible says so has been simply been replaced by 'it's true because science says so.'

[porca misèria]

I was being a little tongue in cheek, while making a valid point I feel. Science is necessarily pedantic. I think that upsets some people!

Yes and no ...

The 99% drudgery is indeed pedantic. But the glamorous bits - the inspiration - doesn't look pedantic at all And all the best stories are the latter.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

what I am saying is that the process of thinking about a subject to which you are not connected is impossible for some people to even begin.

how true. if you tune in to any football talk radio show you will hear working class blokes, tongue-tied in other circumstances, engage in the most intelligent close analysis of the 'beautiful game' and the fortunes of their chosen club.

i expect the mark of real intelligence is the ability to speak intelligently of that in which you are disinterested.

Many years ago, late 70s or early 80s, I remember a surgeon saying that he could train a car mechanic to be a competent surgeon in a year.

i've always thought that a good mechanic deserves the social status of a physician; either by reducing the latter or elevating that of the former.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Yes, because practicing academics are noted for sitting on huge piles of cash. And you do realize that if you read any scientific page on Wikipedia (many of which are written or edited by research scientists) without paying, a bunch of scientific heavies will turn up on your doorstep with a drill and extract the bit of brain tissue containing the knowledge..

you are always reprising this sorry argument, and it's cobblers.

tenured university academics are undeniably privileged in that they get well paid to follow their interests free from commercial pressures and enjoy full job security, enviable autonomy and high social status.

what would most of them do if they were to lose their positions tomorrow?

[SpectrumFX]

Yes, because practicing academics are noted for sitting on huge piles of cash. And you do realize that if you read any scientific page on Wikipedia (many of which are written or edited by research scientists) without paying, a bunch of scientific heavies will turn up on your doorstep with a drill and extract the bit of brain tissue containing the knowledge..

The funny thing is, the assertion of base financial motives for every human action is down to the 'Superiority Complex' that Economists seem to have, allowing them to make pronouncements on entire fields of knowledge based on a few assertions of financial interest. But economics is most certainly not a science.

And it's not a case of 'your views are useless without a qualification'. The problem is that gaining competency in an area of science requires a basic amount of legwork; you don't have to gain a qualification to do this, but gaining such a qualification is a good way of doing it and a shortcut to demonstrating it. And generally, what the 'superiority' arguments come down to is when a person who hasn't done the basic legwork decides that Scientists are wrong about something, they tend to get dismissed or ignored, especially once it is noted that they don't know what they are talking about.

(Obvious examples.. Evolution deniers who don't understand statistics or genetics at any level; Global Warming Deniers who have no knowledge of basic paleoclimatology and physics; Anti-nuclear campaigners who don't understand the concept of relative risk; Alt-med quacks who really don't understand how to collect and use evidence..)

And, of course, it's always easier to claim victimhood (Nasty scientists all acting like they know more than me! Not Fair! I have teh googles!) than put in the time and effort to understand a subject, let alone admit ignorance.

The universities seem to do OK for themselves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_universities_by_endowment

[fluffy666]

you are always reprising this sorry argument, and it's cobblers.

tenured university academics are undeniably privileged in that they get well paid to follow their interests free from commercial pressures and enjoy full job security, enviable autonomy and high social status.

what would most of them do if they were to lose their positions tomorrow?

How does any of this relate to the argument?

[Economic Exile]

A good answer, you'd get an A you also managed to highlight why I loathe richard Dawkins.

Why can't we get by without feeling we're better than at least someone? We're all guilty, if that's the right word.

About 6 years ago I went to a talk at D & G Arts Festival by Richard Dawkins. His arrogance and rudeness in his talk and towards people who had questions was astounding. During his talk he tore up leaflets about alternative views and threw them on the floor.

I got the impression that RD felt that as a leading scientist he was superior and that he viewed science as having authority over any other views. He said he was right and that was the end of it!

Personally I favour mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake who dare to research outside the limits of mainstream science. It shows a bit of humility and openess to the fact that there is a great deal we do not know about the universe we live in.

In general I do think the authority of science is often used by scientists to assert their view as superior

[Turned Out Nice Again]

How does any of this relate to the argument?

that despite your bluster, you haven't demonstrated that scientists are any less corruptible than oil execs.

post-normal science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

About 6 years ago I went to a talk at D & G Arts Festival by Richard Dawkins. His arrogance and rudeness in his talk and towards people who had questions was astounding. During his talk he tore up leaflets about alternative views and threw them on the floor.

I got the impression that RD felt that as a leading scientist he was superior and that he viewed science as having authority over any other views. He said he was right and that was the end of it!

Personally I favour mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake who dare to research outside the limits of mainstream science. It shows a bit of humility and openess to the fact that there is a great deal we do not know about the universe we live in.

In general I do think the authority of science is often used by scientists to assert their view as superior

Science derives its authority from proof, or evidence.

Scientists don't claim to know everything about the world we live in, but simply that if we make a claim, that it should be based on evidence or proof.

Scientists can and do speculate, but when doing so should state that they do so.

Either you are willing to believe claims should be backed up by proof or evidence, or you are happy to believe claims without proof or evidence.

It's not difficult to understand how scientists might view themselves as superior. They state their claims, the evidence as to why they make those claims and invite others to present evidence that contradicts their claims based on logical argument and alternative evidence.

If anyone has a method to evaluate claims in a better way than this please let me know.

[porca misèria]

you are always reprising this sorry argument, and it's cobblers.

tenured university academics are undeniably privileged in that they get well paid to follow their interests free from commercial pressures and enjoy full job security, enviable autonomy and high social status.

That's true.

But the road to tenure is long and hard. If you graduate in your early 20s, you look upon the prospect of a long, long time in a series of short-term contracts on well-below-average pay. And if you make it through that, you'll be middle-aged when you finally get that tenure (if you ever do). Hardly the career aspirations of a mercenary!

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

That's true.

But the road to tenure is long and hard. If you graduate in your early 20s, you look upon the prospect of a long, long time in a series of short-term contracts on well-below-average pay. And if you make it through that, you'll be middle-aged when you finally get that tenure (if you ever do). Hardly the career aspirations of a mercenary!

It's generally not true at all.

There may be a few pure scientists at top institutions that live in this ivory towered luxury.

But for the vast majority life is a constant quest for government funding, of attempting to raise awareness and gain commercial interest, of IP and patenting, of publish or perish and of departmental administration and teaching..

[snowflux]

that despite your bluster, you haven't demonstrated that scientists are any less corruptible than oil execs.

post-normal science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Individual scientists are probably as prone to corruption, fraud and error as anyone else, but the nature of the scientific process means that such deceptions or mistakes cannot go unnoticed for long.

A topical issue at the moment is the recent supposedly ground-breaking study claiming that stem cells can be produced cheaply and quickly by dipping cells in acid. This claim is already starting to look decidedly shaky, and will be consigned to the dustbin of scientific endeavour if it cannot be replicated by others soon.

Edit: It is this readiness to abandon theories that are not borne out by evidence that makes science such a powerful tool.

[fluffy666]

that despite your bluster, you haven't demonstrated that scientists are any less corruptible than oil execs.

Didn't see that I was trying to demonstrate that in the first place.

The fact is, though, that if you want money, you don't go into academia.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Individual scientists are probably as prone to corruption, fraud and error as anyone else, but the nature of the scientific process means that such deceptions or mistakes cannot go unnoticed for long.

A topical issue at the moment is the recent supposedly ground-breaking study claiming that stem cells can be produced cheaply and quickly by dipping cells in acid. This claim is already starting to look decidedly shaky, and will be consigned to the dustbin of scientific endeavour if it cannot be replicated by others soon.

Edit: It is this readiness to abandon theories that are not borne out by evidence that makes science such a powerful tool.

did you read the "post-normal science" link?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Didn't see that I was trying to demonstrate that in the first place.

The fact is, though, that if you want money, you don't go into academia.

probably not, but if you're already in it, and money suddenly becomes available, what then?

rationalization of self-interest usually.

same goes for politicians.

even oil execs probably don't start off "evil".

[Nuggets Mahoney]

That's true.

But the road to tenure is long and hard. If you graduate in your early 20s, you look upon the prospect of a long, long time in a series of short-term contracts on well-below-average pay. And if you make it through that, you'll be middle-aged when you finally get that tenure (if you ever do). Hardly the career aspirations of a mercenary!

Which is (partly) the issue I think

I've encountered virtually no-one who criticises the idealized scientific method as such. The criticisms I see are about the risks of the idealized method being practised by ordinary, fallible people. Fallible in many different ways, not just a desire for loot or security.

I'm not even sure that this is all that contentious a suggestion. It's what (I think) Kuhn was getting at with the concept of paradigm shifts in science.

Once a particular paradigm becomes scientific orthodoxy and influential figures have spent decades rising to eminence in support of that orthodoxy, a lot of inertia is built into the system.

It's a bit of a cliche but I'll quote Planck anyway...

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

As an aside, I've long been a bit of a fan of characters such as Charles Fort and Michael Cremo who spent their time collecting anomalous, 'damned' data. In Fort's case, he wasn't pushing any competing paradigms and I suspect, like me, he believed that most of these anomalies were b0ll0cks. They are, however, amusing in their own right and can sometimes help to keep scientists on their toes.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

probably not, but if you're already in it, and money suddenly becomes available, what then?

rationalization of self-interest usually.

same goes for politicians.

even oil execs probably don't start off "evil".

Socrates' most famous quote 'I know that I know nothing' has been referenced a couple of times on recent threads.

The second most famous of his zingers is probably 'No one desires evil.'

The dude had it pretty much all covered 2,400 years ago, which is about 2,000 years before our reported Enlightenment.

[Austin Allegro]

About 6 years ago I went to a talk at D & G Arts Festival by Richard Dawkins. His arrogance and rudeness in his talk and towards people who had questions was astounding. During his talk he tore up leaflets about alternative views and threw them on the floor.

I got the impression that RD felt that as a leading scientist he was superior and that he viewed science as having authority over any other views. He said he was right and that was the end of it!

Personally I favour mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake who dare to research outside the limits of mainstream science. It shows a bit of humility and openess to the fact that there is a great deal we do not know about the universe we live in.

In general I do think the authority of science is often used by scientists to assert their view as superior

I think Dawkins is an extreme example. Anyone who sticks their neck out against religious fundamentalism in today's world is bound to become a bit embittered.

I remember hearing a sermon by, I think, either the Dean or Bishop of Guildford, who was on some sort of moral advisory panel for the CERN particle accelerator. He said they had a number of non-scientific consultants including I think a philosopher. That strikes me as the kind of dialogue that should be going on between scientists and non-scientists.

[Riedquat]

Once a particular paradigm becomes scientific orthodoxy and influential figures have spent decades rising to eminence in support of that orthodoxy, a lot of inertia is built into the system.

Which is usually a good thing, it ties in with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." There's usually a good reason that inertia has been able to build up, so whilst it may be annoyingly slow to shift out of the way when there is a genuinely better idea it does a lot to prevent too much being wasted galloping down blind alleys.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Which is usually a good thing, it ties in with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." There's usually a good reason that inertia has been able to build up, so whilst it may be annoyingly slow to shift out of the way when there is a genuinely better idea it does a lot to prevent too much being wasted galloping down blind alleys.

As a relevant aside, I did a couple of degrees in geology/ geophysics so long ago I'd run into papers that predated plate tectonics and explained everything away with reference to geosynclines. One interesting lesson I learned from that, aside from an introduction to institutional dissonance, is how all sorts of data and observations that were parked to one side pre-tectonics became much more noteworthy once they fitted the prevailing paradigm.

[Dorkins]

That's true.

But the road to tenure is long and hard. If you graduate in your early 20s, you look upon the prospect of a long, long time in a series of short-term contracts on well-below-average pay. And if you make it through that, you'll be middle-aged when you finally get that tenure (if you ever do). Hardly the career aspirations of a mercenary!

Tenure is an American concept, no such thing in the UK. If you aren't bringing in the grants, your job is not guaranteed.

[Riedquat]

As a relevant aside, I did a couple of degrees in geology/ geophysics so long ago I'd run into papers that predated plate tectonics and explained everything away with reference to geosynclines. One interesting lesson I learned from that, aside from an introduction to institutional dissonance, is how all sorts of data and observations that were parked to one side pre-tectonics became much more noteworthy once they fitted the prevailing paradigm.

Which is all good IMO - a better theory eventually worked its way to the front (whether by the supporters of the old one dying off or changing their minds doesn't really matter) and there was pre-existing work available to build on with the new theory.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Which is all good IMO - a better theory eventually worked its way to the front (whether by the supporters of the old one dying off or changing their minds doesn't really matter) and there was pre-existing work available to build on with the new theory.

On the subject of sensational claims requiring sensational evidence and, to some, Richard Dawkins being smugness personified, I think it's a shame Carl Sagan didn't hang around for a while longer. Even though he occupied similar territory to Dawkins, he struck me as being a gentler soul, more chilled about everything. The drugs probably helped.